<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">These are mostly for Craig but they're relevant to everyone, so I am sending it to the mailing list. I don't know if these have been properly written down as part of a policy.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1. Please don't assign reviews normally.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If someone reviews your tickets, don't punish them by crushing them with all the other tickets you have :). The point of having a single review queue for all reviewers is that the responsibility should be diffused and lots of people should be doing reviews. You can always <i class="">ask</i> someone to review your tickets, of course, but assigning them suggests to other reviewers that they won't be able to do a complete job and that they should leave it to the assignee. Assigning should be reserved for cases where either the original reviewer did a really huge review and you'd like a re-review from the same person to ensure that you fully understood it, or the person in question has some specialized knowledge because you're adding test coverage or documentation to untested/undocumented code that they wrote and you want to make sure you're getting it right.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2. The branch-naming convention puts the ticket number at the _end_ of the branch name.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For example, foo-1234, not 1234-foo. If we re-add the automation to recognize branch names and update the 'branch' field in trac, getting this consistent will be important.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-glyph<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></body></html>